|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - increasingdifficulty
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 74
501
« on: April 06, 2018, 10:39 »
And don't forget that April is the first month of the year which begins with the letter A
It's also the only month that ends with an L, which I find VERY suspicious!
502
« on: April 06, 2018, 10:25 »
To early to say. Not that bad but, remember that last month was the last month of the financial year.
In what country? The UK? That is very different in different countries, and most do not use April-March. 
503
« on: April 06, 2018, 04:04 »
And I don't do either.
Well, you don't do it because you don't have a 600 mm lens.  Anyway, you have to look beyond the Canon primes. I don't have one of those either. Sure, it opens up to f4 and has better sharpness than my 150-600 S from Sigma, but the Sigma is pretty darn all right. ESPECIALLY for the money ($1,800). And the zoom range is quite versatile. In reality, a 600 mm prime is not something I would like bringing on long hikes, because changing lenses between every shot is not something I enjoy too much. I mostly film, and on my GH4 it becomes 1,380 mm in 4k, or 2,760 mm if you crop down to HD, which can be useful for much more than birds. I have maxed it out many, many times. The Moon or the sun filling the frame for example. All kinds of animals really, even getting fine details of big animals. Actually, when I use 600 mm on my Canon 5D mk III, I don't think I get much reach at all anymore.
504
« on: April 06, 2018, 02:58 »
Using primes and getting a new camera have very little to do with each other. 
Well, you did say "or lens".
It certainly sounds as if you should go for it. I really need to bookmark your response for use on my wife the next time I feel the urge to upgrade.
Well, yes, and of course I fully agree with your using what you have argument, and you should always zoom with your feet if possible, think about depth of field, shutter speed etc. But with a 600 mm lens you can get shots that are simply impossible with 200 mm. No way around it. A 2.8 lens vs. a 5.6 at the same focal length will also yield very different results. A 2.8 lens on a Sony a7S II means you can get shots that you can sell that would be impossible in the same situation with a 5.6 lens on a GH4 for example. Of course, upgrading from a 24-70 mk I lens to a 24-70 mk II isn't quite as dramatic, and THAT would be more of a "gearhead" upgrade.
505
« on: April 06, 2018, 02:30 »
I was shooting with 105mm and 200mm manual focus primes yesterday and I got some very pleasing results precisely because I had to "zoom with my feet" and think carefully about depth of field, hyperfocal distance, shutter speeds, telephoto compression effects and how they all worked with what I was trying to achieve.
Using primes and getting a new camera have very little to do with each other. If I can suddenly record 4k 60p, that means a HUGE increase in what I can produce. If I can suddenly use ISO 3200-12,800 and get professional looking results, that means a HUGE increase in what I can produce. If I can suddenly shoot at 600 mm instead of 300 mm, that also means a HUGE increase in what I can produce. If my camera can suddenly go under water or fly, you guessed it, huge increase in what I can produce. So yes, gear matters a great deal, and for me, the inspiration alone can be worth it.
506
« on: April 05, 2018, 14:08 »
newer cameras will not help with future sells
Perhaps not because of technical quality, but for me, a new camera or lens really gets my inspiration going = a lot of work done in a short period of time. Everything is fun with new gear.
507
« on: April 05, 2018, 10:53 »
Update: I downgraded back to CC 2017 (14) and everything works as it should again, not a crash in sight... Quite a few good work hours lost though... oh well.  
508
« on: April 05, 2018, 06:33 »
The reason why I haven't done it is that at the moment with D850 files, After Effects is pushed to the last limits, take over the whole PC resources and sometimes crashes.
I will upgrade my RAM from 32 to 64 and also start to experiment converting files to DNG to see if it makes a small difference
I've never had a problem with After Effects crashes... ...until today! After the 15.1 (April 3rd) update. Now I can't even export a RAW sequence without crashing. I have to do it 2 seconds at a time... This was never a problem until the update and I could work on other things while it ran in the background. Interesting how they can screw up something this bad with an "update"... Anyone else with this problem after the update?
509
« on: April 04, 2018, 09:37 »
Hey its all good. Your reply was respectful and constructive. And you have some great points. I appreciate it. I think you are right about not showing the best sellers. Im going to have to think more about this. Anyway, thanks very much!
I don't want to discourage you from making YouTube videos, you have a talent for it! And of course you should put out whatever material YOU think it's right, and I know how tempting it is to make videos around the "make money doing what you love" subject, because naturally, that gets clicks. At least now you might think about whether it's worth those clicks, if you are trying to increase your own stock revenue. I used to write on forums as well about where I sold the most, because I was excited about it, but after some thinking I realized what that actually does to my sales in the long run. Now I only market to buyers, not sellers.
510
« on: April 04, 2018, 01:23 »
With a high risk of sounding like a broken record, and coming off as rude (sorry), I will say it again: I can't understand why one would work so hard to bring in endless direct competition. You may make $10-100 from a popular YouTube video on "how to make money" or "this sells" but it will hurt your sales 100 times more over the course of a few years. The barrier to entry is virtually non-existent, and 99% of people have a camera, and 99% of people are interested in making money. A thousand new competitors with 1,000 images each... That's another million images to compete with yours. Especially when showing exactly what sells. I know intentions are good, and as a human, I'm all for it, but as a business, protecting (trying to) one's income ought to be somewhat important, I believe. I'm all for photography tutorials on methods and technique, but when they're constructed as "shoot this, go here to make money from it", you're just shooting yourself in the foot I'm afraid... --- Feedback on the actual videos: They're good and well presented. You seem to have a natural talent of speaking to the camera. The voice audio is great, but I would try to find higher quality background music. In the "Top 10 Stock..." I think it's distractingly bad... Again, I apologize for the critique, and I understand a good person just wants to help, but I feel I want to at least TRY to reduce the increase in competition just a bit.
511
« on: April 03, 2018, 09:49 »
I am not promoting myself or anything like that
OK. What I think? I think that promoting selling stock is probably the worst thing you can do if you plan on continuing selling stock. 
512
« on: April 03, 2018, 09:30 »
Lol yeah... Okay. And your point?
It doesn't explicitly say the materials "cannot be used on websites". And for the site in question - they could simply argue it is preview/evaluation site.
I hope you are joking. A website that is live is of course a "finished product", even if it gets changed later. A "preview/evaluation" is not something the public has access to. Read again - "do not permit you to display or distribute to the public".
513
« on: April 03, 2018, 09:21 »
I'm trying to say though - unless the site to the end user explicitly states "preview images may not be used on websites" (which I have not seen from the license agreements I've reviewed), there's not really any enforceability.
Here's what I found after 3 seconds spent searching, it's for Shutterstock footage: "A FOOTAGE COMP LICENSE grants you the right to use watermarked, low resolution Footage as a comp (the "Comp Footage") solely in test, sample, comp, or rough cut evaluation materials. Footage Comp Licenses do not permit you to display or distribute to the public or incorporated into any final materials any such Footage. Comp Footage can be edited, but you may not remove or alter the Shutterstock watermark."I mean, OF COURSE previews are not allowed in final materials. It's just so obvious I can't even believe you question it. From Fotolia (answer to question): "Yes, you can try out Fotolia images by downloading the low-resolution, watermarked version for mock-up purposes only. You can pay when you decide to license the image. However, you may not use a Comp image in the finished product."--- ...and your cookie analogy... No, it's like giving out free images to get people to like your website. Which is exactly what happens. But it's not the same images...
514
« on: April 03, 2018, 08:55 »
If you had a watermark in my images on your site, I would be perfectly fine with that.
Good to know! But it doesn't really change whether it's legal or not, unless the image came from your personal site where you clearly state: "no need to pay if you use watermarked version in any situation".
515
« on: April 03, 2018, 02:26 »
The difference between royalties and other income is that you do not SELL THE IMAGES, but you sell a LICENSE to USE the images, and you keep the copyright. To prove that, you may need to show the auditors the contributor agreement and/or the license agreement, in which this is explained.
The taxation rules regarding royalties, and what is considered to be royalties, can be very different in different countries. "No sales tax on royalties" is not how it works where I live for example. The only thing that makes sense is to read up on how to do it where you live, not just the US.
516
« on: April 02, 2018, 14:40 »
the average time for post processing is about 30 minutes from start to finish, including encoding. I consider it perfectly acceptable.
I don't think I've ever finished a clip that fast. Barely a regular clip. I've been doing more and more work in post, making composites and tweaks that real life didn't offer. Not to mention there's not much worth time lapsing where I live when the environment isn't lush and green (soon we're back in beauty mode). Living in London would of course offer much more year round. But for composites and heavy editing I need After Effects. Rendering is slow, but to me it's definitely worth it. Not to mention it's a lot of fun! What REALLY takes time is rendering something in Cinema 4D and bringing it into After Effects... That can be 12-20 hours for a few seconds... Whatever works for each of us is good I suppose!
517
« on: April 02, 2018, 00:56 »
Best advice ...stop with the girl On cellphone Looking left and right. All these were done to death 12 years ago.
So time for revival with latest models of smartphones?
No no, everyone knows buyers are looking for outdated clips/photos with the Nokia 3310. It feels so cool to be retro.
518
« on: April 01, 2018, 03:54 »
How many times have you EVER seen a major US retailer close their store for "maintenance?"
Many times. Apple is just one major company that comes to mind.
519
« on: April 01, 2018, 03:50 »
Month comes to the end and I got some statistics.Upload was started at 28 of january. In the middle of March entire portfolio (2600 footages) was uploaded on SS, P5, FL and VB.
50+ clips uploaded per day with Stocksubmitter? 200+ clips uploaded per day (all sites included)   I'm impressed.
520
« on: March 31, 2018, 05:57 »
I just quoted their server answer
I know, I know. It was a joke.
521
« on: March 31, 2018, 05:29 »
502 Bad Gateway
Did their server post on the forum?
522
« on: March 30, 2018, 04:21 »
This is like giving away your trade secrets IMO. I encourage other videographers to get shooting, and am happy to offer tips. However I don't see any point in divulging information on my best selling clips, what niches I do well out of and my financial info. If I were to share this info it can just make it even harder to compete in an already very competitive market. Some info is just not worth sharing.
Sorry for the non-answers JC, but I would have to agree with pkphotos. These are the top 2 worst things you can do for your sales, even though it's very tempting to talk about it when sales are good: - Write a blog about where you make money, and/or how much you make.
- Write on forums with thousands of visitors about where you make money, and/or how much you make.
Of course I'm being a total hypocrite, because naturally, I love to get this information from others. But the worst thing I can do to my own sales is tell other anonymous creators about my success, and where to find it, more than "I make a living", or "sales are good overall". I spill all the details to friends and family, but posting it in places that get thousands and thousands of views does nothing but speed up the increase in competition, especially if it's a smaller site. I think we all know the feeling of "wow, incredible sales, must tell the world", but in reality, it's a quick fix for your ego, and a slow "fix" for good sales. I'm sure you'll get some good answers, and sorry for writing what you don't want to hear, it's just the naked truth. There is just no benefit in bringing in thousands of anonymous competitors. At the big sites, I suppose the damage is already done, though...
523
« on: March 29, 2018, 00:38 »
This is all very interesting information "increasingdifficulty"! Thank you!
For me most of my time goes into rotoscoping out airplane trails, satellites and meteors from night timelapses, so worrying about varying black levels is the last thing I'm waiting for.
That's a lot of work. I keep most of my star time lapses as they are for now, including satellites. The thing that bothers me the most is blurring faces in busy time lapses (even with long exposures, because at tourist destinations, people stand very still a lot apparently)... Applying a bottom "blur fog" works most of the time, but it's the lazy way and eats up much of the scene... But it happens with newer models camera's, might perhaps have to do something with the extended ISO sensivity.
By the way, since my first Nikon D1H I know that I should only use multiple ISO sensitivities. Like 200 - 400 - 800 - 1600 etc.
For inbetween sensitivities 250, 320, 500, 640 etc. a second amplifier is used that introduces extra noise, meaning that 500 or 640 ISO has more noise than 800 ISO.
Don't know if this also applies to latest generations of camera's but it is a rule of thumb I still use.
Good points about the noise, but from what I've seen, ISO is not related to the black level issue. Even at 100 or 200 it happens.
524
« on: March 28, 2018, 10:16 »
By the way, how do you go about previewing all those huge files from the camera? Load them all into Lightroom and wait for the previews? Shoot RAW + jpg? If you haven't tried it already, I can really recommend a small little tool called ERawP, which extracts all embedded jpg preview files that hide inside every RAW file. I don't shoot RAW + jpg, I just drop the RAW files into ErawP, and boom, within a few seconds it extracts all the embedded jpg previews so I can quickly look through all the images without having to open any applications at all. It has probably saved me a couple of work weeks.
525
« on: March 28, 2018, 06:03 »
But you must ask yourself if what is good for the art director is also good for you.
Following that advice (i.e."upload more of the same") is a mistake, in my opinion.
While it might be good for art directors and SS, too many choices will dilute your sales and shrink your revenue.
PS. Remember that Apple is very successful despite limitting choices to one or two iPhones per year.
Very, very true. Best for the buyer is unlimited angles and variations for free. Not best for us.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
